Assessment of Soil Sealing Management Responses, Strategies,and Targets Toward Ecologically Sustainable Urban Land UseManagement

Martina Artmann

Abstract Soil sealing has negative impacts on ecosystem

services since urban green and soil get lost. Although there

is political commitment to stop further sealing, no reversal

of this trend can be observed in Europe. This paper raises

the questions (1) which strategies can be regarded as being

efficient toward ecologically sustainable management of

urban soil sealing and (2) who has competences and should

take responsibility to steer soil sealing? The analyses are

conducted in Germany. The assessment of strategies is

carried out using indicators as part of a content analysis.

Legal-planning, informal-planning, economic-fiscal, co-

operative, and informational strategies are analyzed.

Results show that there is a sufficient basis of strategies to

secure urban ecosystem services by protecting urban green

and reducing urban gray where microclimate regulation is a

main target. However, soil sealing management lacks a

spatial strategically overview as well as the consideration

of services provided by fertile soils.

Keywords Soil sealing � Soil sealing management �Ecosystem services � Germany � Urban green �Urban planning

INTRODUCTION

The ongoing urbanization is one of the main threats for

sustaining ecosystems’ capability to supply ecosystem ser-

vices to humans (MA 2005). Cities are characterized by a

high degree of impervious surfaces and by continuous built-

up areas (e.g., Turok and Mykhnenko 2007). Hence, urban

growth promotes the increase in land take and soil sealing.

Land take is understood as the conversion of open areas into

built-up areas and can also include non-sealed areas such as

gardens. Soil sealing is defined as the permanent covering of

soil by completely or partly impermeable artificial material

(Prokop et al. 2011). Sealing by urban gray infrastructure,

which includes all forms of pavements and buildings

(according to Breuste 2011), has especially negative impacts

on the potential provision of ecosystem services. Soil sealing

influences regulating services by increasing water surface

runoff (Haase and Nuissl 2007) and microclimate regulation

by increasing temperatures (Henry and Dicks 1987). It

reduces provisioning services such as food production since

fertile agricultural areas in particular get lost (Burghardt

2006). Furthermore, due to loss and fragmentation of habi-

tats for flora and fauna, soil sealing has negative impacts on

supporting services and is threatening urban biodiversity

(Montanarella 2007). Moreover, the supply of cultural ser-

vices is under pressure, since recreational areas within urban

core districts are threatened by (re-)densifications (Niemela

et al. 2010).

Despite shrinking of the European population, a constant

increase in impervious surfaces within the European Union

can be observed (Prokop et al. 2011). The fact that there is

a need to stop further soil sealing has already affected

policies at the European and national level (EC 2012; EEA

2012). However, between 1990 and 2006 an increase of

8.8 % in artificial surfaces could be observed and, in 2006,

2.3 % of the European territory was sealed (Prokop et al.

2011). In Germany, a target was formulated which rec-

ommends the decrease of daily land take to 30 ha day-1 in

2020. This target seems difficult to reach since in 2010 still

77 ha day-1 were being taken for transport and settlement

areas (Statistisches Bundesamt 2012). Neither a target on

sealing reduction nor a standardized sealing monitoring

exists in Germany. However, estimates show that between

46 and 50 % of transport and settlement areas are sealed

(Breitenfeld 2009). Today, 5 % of the German territory is

covered by impervious surfaces (Prokop et al. 2011).

123� The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

www.kva.se/en

AMBIO 2014, 43:530–541

DOI 10.1007/s13280-014-0511-1

Since cities in particular are characterized by a high degree

of impervious surfaces, it is crucial to steer urban soil sealing

in an ecologically sustainable way to secure urban ecosys-

tems’ ability to sustain ecosystem services for their residents.

Therefore, this paper investigates (1) which responses, strat-

egies, and sub-targets can be regarded as being efficient

toward ecologically sustainable management of urban soil

sealing and (2) who has competences and should take

responsibility to steer soil sealing? Germany was chosen as the

study area as this is one of the most sealed countries within the

EU (Prokop et al. 2011). Table 1 provides definitions of the

main terms used and their relation to the research questions.

Scales of Investigation and Study Area

The research integrates three scales, taking into account

steering competences and addressees at the macro-, meso-,

and microscale. At the macroscale regions (Region of

Western Saxony/Region of Munich), federal states (Sax-

ony/Bavaria) and the federal government (Germany) were

considered. At the mesoscale, shrinking and growing cities

with over 100 000 inhabitants in Germany were analyzed as

it is assumed that the challenges cities face are especially

complex due to the larger scale. Fourty-seven percent of

European cities have a population of over 100 000 inhab-

itants (EC 2011). European cities are facing economic

changes such as deindustrialization (Turok and Mykhnenko

2007), which offer cities the opportunity to re-use urban

industrial wastelands to reduce further sealing. Moreover,

European cities are confronted with social individualiza-

tion, which leads to an increase in living space per capita.

This hinders a reduction of land take (Haase et al. 2013) and

decreases urban green areas (Kabisch and Haase 2013),

which are essential for ecosystem service provision (Bolund

and Hunhammar 1999). Growing and shrinking cities were

differentiated because they face various challenges in urban

management. Two case study cities were selected under

specific selection criteria. Leipzig was selected between

1998 and 2008 as the highest increase in settlement and

transport areas in Germany was recorded in the city despite

the shrinkage processes. Munich was chosen due to a high

increase in recreational areas between 1998 and 2008 and a

high increase in population at the same time.

Leipzig is situated in Saxony, East Germany and has a

population of 520 838 in 2012 (www.statistik.leipzig.de).

Because of losing in economic importance in the 1960s,

Leipzig experienced a high population migration. Despite

processes of shrinkage, suburbanization, and urban sprawl

could be observed, reaching their peak in the late 1990s

(Haase and Nuissl 2010). Leipzig today is an example

where both processes of shrinkage in the urban periphery

and re-urbanization, especially in the urban core areas, can

be found (Haase and Nuissl 2007). Previous studies on soil

sealing development between 1997 and 2003 showed that

sealing efficiency decreased during sealing at the urban

fringes by commercial and industrial sites and low density

residential areas. In total, an increase in sealed surfaces of

2.84 % could be observed and in 2003, 27 % of the area

was sealed (Artmann 2013a).

With a population of 1.4 million (2011), Munich is the

third largest city in Germany. Munich is characterized by a

high immigration pressure as the population increased by

over 200 000 residents between 1990 and 2010. Further

population growth of 100 000 residents is projected by

2020. Moreover, Munich can be characterized by an urban

re-organization due to the privatization of the German

Railway System and the closing of barracks that were used

for new residential and recreational areas. Compared to

Leipzig, this supported a low increase of sealing, 0.4 %

between 1998 and 2011 and in 2011, 36 % of the area was

sealed. However, no further wastelands are available now

and new residential areas should be built by further den-

sification which threatens the loss of ecosystem services,

especially in the urban core areas where green areas are

already under pressure due to their small sizes and low per

capita supply (Artmann 2013a). At the microscale, the

civic society (NGOs and residents) and practitioners of

relevance for soil sealing management (investors and

(landscape) architects) were considered.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Definition of Set of Instruments and Its Steering

Competences and Addressees

To analyze the efficiency of soil sealing management

strategies and sub-targets toward an ecological urban sus-

tainable development (research question 1), sets of instru-

ments considering a holistic soil sealing management

approach were first defined. Sets of instruments were

defined since German policy assumes that the 30-ha target

can only be achieved by a mix of instruments (Deutscher

Bundestag 2004). A holistic soil sealing management

approach includes quantitative, qualitative, and compen-

satory management of urban gray and urban green as well

as the protection of soils as the basis of urban gray and

green. These steering dimensions are defined as sub-targets

in this paper (Table 1) and were derived from a spatial

analysis of soil sealing development (Artmann 2013a). For

assessing how these sub-targets can be achieved, strategies

were identified by reviewing planning documents and lit-

erature. For soil sealing, relevant strategies include legal-

planning (including laws and informal planning), eco-

nomic-fiscal (e.g., subsidies, taxes), co-operative (e.g.,

regional or sectoral co-operations), and informational

AMBIO 2014, 43:530–541 531

� The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

www.kva.se/en 123

strategies (e.g., spatial monitoring, awareness raising,

improving know-how) (Artmann 2013a). Specific instru-

ments (named as responses) of each strategy were selected

and assigned to the sub-targets via criteria (see Fig. 1).

The selection of responses was done by reviewing laws

as well as local-planning documents (zoning, landscape,

sectoral, and informal plans), scientific literature and pro-

jects (such as REFINA, Research for the Reduction of Land

Consumption and Sustainable Land Management), local

initiatives and by conducting expert interviews including

experts from the departments of planning, environmental

reporting, environmental protection, urban redevelopment,

and construction as well as NGOs, real estate agents and

research. The responses selected should have relevance for

steering soil sealing, land take and land use, urban green

areas, and soil as part of a holistic soil sealing management.

The focus of this paper is on responses in use. However, in

further studies, theoretically discussed responses will be

included. In total, 93 responses in practice and 24 theoret-

ically discussed responses were identified and assigned to

the sub-targets, whereas a response can be assigned to more

sub-targets but only to one strategy. The number of

responses selected per strategy is shown in Fig. 1. To ana-

lyze the main management authorities and addressees

(research question 2), the selected responses were assigned

to the macro- (state government, federal states, region),

meso- (city level), and microscale (civic society, practitio-

ners) by identifying who has the power to develop a

response (authority) and who is responsible for imple-

menting it (addressees) (see Fig. 1) (Artmann 2013b).

Indicators to Assess Strategies Toward an

Ecologically Sustainable Soil Sealing Management

The efficiency assessment of strategies and spatial sub-

targets toward ecologically sustainable management was

based on indicators. Indicators are useful as they support

policy and decision makers by providing comprehensible

and quick information on consequences of steering actions

on the environment (Pulles and van Harmelen 2004). The

indicators were derived by developing hypotheses of an

ecologically sustainable development based on structured

expert interviews in Leipzig and Munich, literature review

and analyses of impacts by soil sealing on ecosystem ser-

vices provisioning (Artmann 2013c). The indicators should

reflect impacts of sealing on the urban ecosystem and

ecosystem service provisioning as well as framework

conditions for ecologically sustainable management.

Indicators on Impacts by Soil Sealing on Ecosystem Service

Supply

Ecosystem service supply strongly depends on land use.

Therefore, indicators that assess the supply of ecosystem

services should be sensitive to land use change (Larondelle

and Haase 2013). Following this, land use policy steering

urban soil sealing in an ecological sustainable manner

should be aware of impacts on ecosystem service provision

by soil sealing. This target becomes even more crucial as

cities face global climate hazards (Bulkeley 2013) which

are intensified by soil sealing. Moreover, according to

experts in Leipzig and Munich, the increasing importance

of ‘‘soft’’ location factors, including sufficient supply of

recreational areas, improve the consciousness of impacts

by sealing (Artmann 2013c). Recreational areas should

offer characteristics such as ‘‘wilderness’’ or a ‘‘rich variety

of species’’ (Herzele and Wiedeman 2003) and can thus be

managed like urban forests. In contrast, urban parks are

more managed (Bolund and Hunhammar 1999) but also

provide physical and psychological well-being for urban

Table 1 Glossary of main terms and their relation to the research

questions

Term Definition

Efficiency Criterion of assessment which describes to which degree a

response is suitable to achieve an objective in a certain

way. The definition of an ecologically efficient soil

sealing management approach is provided in Table 2

Response Specific instrument which aims to steer soil sealing (e.g.,

a specific law such as the building code). This paper

assesses the efficiency of ecological sustainable

responses

Strategy Strategy is understood as the sum of responses addressing

the same types of steering. Within this study legal-

planning, informal-planning, economic-fiscal, co-

operative and informational strategies are investigated.

The efficiency assessment of strategies is based on the

assessment of responses which are assigned to strategies

(see Fig. 1)

Sub-

targets

Sub-targets define what has to be steered spatially in the

course of a holistic soil sealing management approach.

These targets relate to steering urban green (open land

such as forests and agricultural land, recreational areas),

gray (built-up areas and artificial material) and soil

(land and substrate). Urban green and gray can be

steered quantitatively (reduction of new sealing and

land take, protection of green areas), qualitatively

(promotion of internal development and space efficient

building forms, protection of green areas with high

ecological performance). Moreover, existing sealed

areas can be compensated by de-sealing or greening

roofs (see also Fig. 1). The efficiency assessment of

sub-targets is based on the assessment of responses

which are assigned to the sub-targets

Actors Actors of soil sealing management refer to administrative

units and communities responsible for developing and

implementing strategies in the course of a holistic soil

sealing management. The responses selected are

assigned to groups of actors of different management

scales to prove who is responsible for soil sealing

management and to which degree (see Fig. 1)

532 AMBIO 2014, 43:530–541

123� The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

www.kva.se/en

dwellers (Chiesura 2004). Besides public green spaces,

private green areas such as gardens and allotments are

crucial for supporting urban biodiversity and for experi-

encing urban wildlife (Goddard et al. 2010). Spatial anal-

yses of impacts on soil sealing in Leipzig between 1997

and 2003 showed that, in particular, soils of high quality

were used for transport and settlement areas as part of the

suburbanization processes (Artmann 2013a). The loss of

valuable soils by sealing is crucial as fertile soils affect

vital processes and functions such as nutrient cycling

processes, seed dispersal, or pollination, which yield eco-

system services (Boyd and Banzhaf 2007). According to an

expert of the Saxon State Office for the Environment,

Agriculture, and Geology and a scientific expert, improved

protection of agricultural areas could be promoted by

stressing the importance of agricultural land for nutrition.

To secure ecosystem services, the obligatory integration of

ecological aspects and reduction of further sealing into

decision making is crucial (Artmann 2013c).

Indicators on Framework Conditions for a Sustainable

Ecological Development

Spatial analyses in Munich on drivers of urban soil sealing

between 1998 and 2011 showed that the main drivers of

sealing were transport areas, which increased especially at

the urban fringes (Artmann 2013a). In general, urban

sprawl increases the distances between working and living

and therefore the need for roads, which leads to an increase

in the use of cars, energy consumption, and traffic emis-

sions (de Ridder et al. 2008). Therefore, reducing private

motorized traffic can support a reduction in sealing and at a

larger scale also in energy consumption and air pollution

(Artmann 2013a). Soil sealing management should there-

fore also include a spatial strategic overview and consider

impacts by urban land use changes on distant rural places,

also termed urban land teleconnections (Seto et al. 2012).

Besides the spatial scale, a temporal hypermetropia is vital

as the definition of sustainability in the Brundtland Report

emphasizes achieving present development in a way which

ensures that future generations can also meet their own

needs.

The Assessment Process

The assessment of soil sealing management responses,

strategies, and spatial targets toward an ecologically sus-

tainable urban sealing management approach was based on

a multi-attribute decision method (MADM) using an ana-

lytical hierarchy process (AHP). The MADM allows a

Fig. 1 Framework for multi-scale analyses of soil sealing management instruments (M Munich, L Leipzig, T in theory discussed responses)

(icon for soil by Osada 2011)

AMBIO 2014, 43:530–541 533

� The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

www.kva.se/en 123

comparison between several alternatives by using a set of

indicators and therefore supports decision making (Zanakis

et al. 1998). Within an AHP, one form of MADM, alter-

natives are compared in pairs including decision makers’

preferences (Saaty and Vargas 2012). The assessment

process included three steps: (1) assessment of importance

of indicators, (2) content analysis of responses, and (3)

evaluation of analyses results. More information on the

method developed for Response-Efficiency-Assessment

(REA) can be found in Artmann (2013b).

The assessment of the importance of indicators (step 1)

was done by involving decision makers of the mesoscale

responsible for urban development and planning, brown-

field management, urban green management and nature

conservation, soil sealing monitoring, urban renewal, and

urban policy. In an online survey, the decision makers were

asked to evaluate the importance of the indicators on a

Likert Scale between 1 and 9, where 1 stood for not

important and 9 for very important (see e.g., Mendoza and

Prabhu 2000). The weighting factor WI represents the mean

value of the assessment (Table 2). The evaluation of the

responses was carried out via a deductive content analysis

(step 2), whereas the indicators served as a categorization

matrix and were use to prove hypotheses developed before

the analysis (Elo and Kyngas 2008). Laws, planning doc-

uments, statements of initiatives, and co-operations were

read carefully and data corresponding to the indicators

excerpted. The excerpted passages were coded according to

the indicators’ assessment score (IS) for each sub-target

(Table 2).

Afterward, the response efficiency (RE) was calculated

for each response R of a strategy S separately for each sub-

target ST (step 3): all indicator scores IS derived by the

responses R within the spatial sub-targets ST (0)–(VI) were

summed up and divided by the number N of responses R

per strategies S reviewed. The sub-targets stand for (see

also Fig. 1) (0) protecting soil; (I) quantitative steering

urban gray; (II) quantitative steering urban green; (III)

qualitative steering urban gray; (IV) qualitative steering

urban green; (V) compensation measures for urban gray;

and (VI) compensation measures for urban green. The

quotient was multiplied by the weighting factor WI (see

Table 2):

REST�S ¼P12

I¼1 ISR�ST

NR�S

�WI

!

The results are provided in % of the maximal reachable

weighted score WI per strategy S. For analyzing the most

efficient strategy and spatial sub-targets toward an

ecological sustainable soil sealing management, the

percentage scores reached per strategy and sub-target

were summed up, and the mean value for the strategies (5

strategies) and spatial targets (7 targets) was calculated.

RESULTS

Figure 2 summarizes the average efficiency of strategies

and spatial sub-targets toward an ecologically sustainable

management as part of a holistic soil sealing management

approach. In Munich and Leipzig, most of the responses

analyzed focus on quantitative protection of urban green

and qualitative steering of urban gray promoting infill

development. Ecological arguments for infill development

are a reduction of fragmentation of habitats, reduction of

traffic, and protection of agricultural areas at the urban

fringes. The protection of soil and the creation of green

roofs are less often included in the reviewed responses. In

Leipzig, de-sealing and dismantling measures are men-

tioned more often than in Munich especially in legal-

planning and informal-planning documents to reduce

transport areas, to adapt to climate change, and to improve

recreational areas by demolishing buildings in highly

densely built-up areas.

In Leipzig, as well as in Munich, steering by legal and

informal planning seems to be the most efficient strategy

followed by co-operative and informational strategies. The

focus of legal and informal planning is especially on the

promotion of urban infill development in course of a

qualitative management of urban gray (Fig. 3). This sub-

target is supported by the German Building Code (Ba-

ugesetzbuch) that allows a faster and more flexible reali-

zation of infill development waiving an environmental

impact assessment. The aim is to protect natural areas and

their fragmentation at the urban fringes. The quantitative

reduction of further sealing is also demanded by the soil

protection clause (Bodenschutzklausel), integrated in the

German Building Code (Baugesetzbuch). Moreover, the

open space plan of the City of Munich, the landscape plan

of the City of Leipzig or the Regional Development plan of

Bavaria and Saxony demand the reduction of further

sealing, especially to improve microclimate regulation.

Economic-fiscal steering seems to be less efficient. This

becomes especially obvious when looking at the economic-

fiscal steering of soils for which no response could be

identified (see Fig. 3). However, fiscal steering especially

supports the promotion of inner development and the re-

use of brownfields with the support of subsidies as well as

the supply and quality of recreational areas. On the

mesoscale, the city of Munich provides financial support to

practitioners and residents for de-sealing and greening

roofs to improve the infiltration of surface water runoff and

microclimate regulation as well as to improve living

534 AMBIO 2014, 43:530–541

123� The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

www.kva.se/en

quality in the highly sealed city of Munich. Within a co-

operative sealing management strategy, the focus in Leip-

zig is on the quantitative and qualitative steering of urban

green which is especially supported by the regional co-

operation Green Ring Leipzig (Gruner Ring Leipzig)

where green areas are to be protected, established, and

interlinked to protect agricultural areas and their fertile

soils for food production, the development of parks for

recreation or forests for improvement of biodiversity. Soft

strategies such as co-operative and informational responses

especially support greening roofs to protect ecosystem

services. This results especially from the transfer of know-

how about ecologic advantages of green roofs through

brochures. As part of a participatory survey on the living

quality in Munich residents demand a reduction of traffic,

also in connection with the de-sealing of streets and the

creation of green areas for recreation. The reduction of

motorized traffic is also one sustainability target in Leipzig

Table 2 Indicators, assessment scores, and importance of indicators for assessing the efficiency of strategies toward ecologically sustainable soil

sealing management (ES, Ecosystem service)

Indicator Indicator assessment score IS (between 1 and 9) Weighting

factor WI

Munich

(N = 13)

Weighting

factor WI

Leipzig

(N = 13)

Securing, improvement and development of

habitats for flora and fauna

9: Protection of ES by securing green areas or soils/by reducing

sealing is clearly stated as target interlinked with benefits

derived by protection/reduction (e.g., reducing further sealing to

protect habitats for flora and fauna and to improve contact to

nature for residents)

7: Importance of ES/function is mentioned but not directly linked

to targets such as reduction of further sealing/protection of

green/soils (e.g., green areas are important for flora and fauna;

sealed surface increase urban heating)

4: Protection/importance of aspects related to ES/functions are

mentioned but they are not directly linked to benefits/harm by

green areas/soils or sealing (e.g., measures for climate

adaptation have to implemented, such measures could also

integrate technical solutions)

1: ES not mentioned

6.85 7.00

Improving surface water run-off 7.08 8.13

Improving climate adaptation (decrease heat

emission, increase carbon binding)

7.23 7.75

Improving private recreational areas (gardens,

courtyards)

6.69 7.19

Improving public green areas (more managed

areas such as parks)

6.69 6.44

Improving recreational areas (less managed, e.g.,

forests, landscape parks)

6.62 6.44

Protection of agricultural areas for food production 5.54 7.00

Protection of ecologically valuable fertile soils and

their functions

7.00 7.44

Reducing motorized private transport 9: Demand for reduction of private motorized transport/

development of public transport is mentioned related to the

reduction of sealing/protection of green/soils (e.g., the

development of public transport is crucial to promote urban

internal development)

7: Demand for reduction of motorized private transport/

development of public transport is mentioned but not interlinked

to targets for reducing sealing/protection of green/soils (e.g.,

further transport areas increase sealing)

4: Demand for reduction of impacts by motorized private

transport/development of public transport are mentioned but not

linked to reducing sealing/protecting green areas (e.g., a

decrease in motorized traffic reduces the air and noise pollution)

1: Demand for reduction of motorized private transport/

development of public transport is not mentioned

6.54 7.50

Spatial strategic overview 9: supra-regional view; 7: regional view; 4: city view; 1: less than

city view/no spatial view

6.85 6.19

Temporal hypermetropia 9: [20 years; 7: 20–11 years; 5: 10–6 years; 3: 5–1 year; 1: no

temporal course mentioned; 9: Integration ecological aspects

before project implementation; 5: Integration ecological aspects

during project implementation; 1: Integration ecological aspects

after project implementation

6.46 7.31

Priority setting: Obligation for considering

ecological aspects/reducing sealing or possibility

of consideration

9: Reduction of further sealing/integration of ecological aspects is

obligatory; 5: Reduction of further sealing/integration of

ecological aspects is demanded but not binding as part of a

weighing-up process with other aspects; 1: Ecological aspects

are not mentioned at all

6.62 7.50

AMBIO 2014, 43:530–541 535

� The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

www.kva.se/en 123

but focuses more on consequences by traffic on air pollu-

tion rather than on the space taken by cars. Moreover,

within the sustainability targets of Leipzig, a reduction of

further sealing is demanded. However, in Leipzig, no

sealing monitoring exists as an informational strategy

which could prove the target achievement. In Munich,

monitoring of sealing exists but no quantitative targets

exist corresponding to the monitoring.

The analyses of management competences and

addressees showed that most of the reviewed responses are

developed at the mesoscale, and therefore the city level has

the highest competence to take appropriate steps to manage

urban soil sealing (Fig. 4). The competence especially

includes the quantitative (31 responses) and qualitative

steering (30 responses) of urban gray. The qualitative

steering of urban gray is also the most often addressed

steering target by the state government (16 responses) and

federal states (20 responses). However, compensation

strategies, for instance, for urban green (state government:

5 responses, federal states: 4 responses) are more rarely

developed at the macroscale but more often at the city level

(19 responses). At the same time, the cities0 policy and

planning departments have to take responsibility to set the

sub-targets through informal plans, monitoring systems,

goals, co-operations between sectors as well as by putting

laws stated by the state government into practice and acting

as a role model to stop further loss of ecosystem services.

Cities are especially addressed with respect to the imple-

mentation of strategies for qualitative steering of urban

gray (28 responses) and quantitative steering of urban

green (21 responses).

According to the review of responses, the microscale has

developed responses less often as part of sealing

management but is more important to put responses into

practice. Therefore, the success of strategies and responses

set by the city also depends on their steering potential on

the microscale. For instance, subsidies for greening walls

or taxes for waste water removal have to be high enough

that residents implement such compensation measures.

Informational strategies like brochures or consulting

addressing the microscale could help to show up ecological

and financial advantages of such actions.

DISCUSSION

Efficiency of Soil Sealing Management to Secure

Ecosystem Services

The evaluation of the responses showed that almost all

strategies integrate ecological aspects as part of sealing

management, which is also crucial in the course of global

environmental change (Grimm et al. 2008). The impor-

tance of climate change within sealing management is also

shown by the experts’ highly ranked importance of indi-

cators on improving surface water run-off and climate

adaptation (Table 2) as well as the ranking of the most

important indicators of the content analysis (Table 3). The

adaptation to climate change could, according to the

reviewed responses, especially be achieved by a quantita-

tive steering of urban green. The positive effect of urban

green on the microclimate has been well investigated in a

range of studies (e.g., Gill et al. 2007; Jo and McPherson

2001). In contrast, the study showed that ecosystem ser-

vices provided by fertile soils are less integrated in the

responses reviewed. This might also occur due to the lack

Fig. 2 Spidergrams comparing the efficiency of spatial targets (left) and strategies (right) for ecologically sustainable soil sealing management

(in %) in Leipzig and Munich. Sub-targets for steering soil sealing: 0 protecting soil; I quantitative steering urban gray; II quantitative steering

urban green; III qualitative steering urban gray; IV qualitative steering urban green; V compensation measures for urban gray; VI compensation

measures for urban green

536 AMBIO 2014, 43:530–541

123� The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

www.kva.se/en

of scientific studies on soil and its provision of ecosystem

services (see review within this special issue, Haase et al.

2014).

Moreover, the results demonstrated that the protection

of soil by economic-fiscal strategies is missing in the case

study cities in Germany. In other European countries, for

instance, in Bulgaria or Poland, sealing of agricultural land

is linked to a fee, the size of which depends on the quality

of soil converted (EC 2012). However, although legal- and

informal-planning strategies seem to be the most efficient,

it cannot be confirmed within this study that a mix of

economic-fiscal and land use planning instruments seems

to be effective in reducing land consumption (Nuissl and

Schroeter-Schlaack 2009), at least for steering soil sealing

in an ecological manner.

The difference between the case study cities regarding

the efficiency of steering was carried out by comparing the

efficiency of spatial targets between Leipzig and Munich.

The evaluation indicates the higher importance of de-

sealing measures in Leipzig than in Munich due to high

degrees of vacancy and brownfields that have arisen in the

periods of shrinkage. In general, de-sealing is a chance to

develop urban green areas, especially for Eastern European

cities (Kabisch and Haase 2013). By investigating the

Fig. 3 Efficiency of strategies to steer sub-targets of soil sealing management in Munich and Leipzig (in %). Sub-targets for steering soil sealing:

0 steering soil; I quantitative steering urban gray; II quantitative steering urban green; III qualitative steering urban gray; IV qualitative steering

urban green; V compensation measures for urban gray; VI compensation measures for urban green

AMBIO 2014, 43:530–541 537

� The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

www.kva.se/en 123

development of urban green in 202 European cities, Ka-

bisch and Haase (2013) further showed that an increase in

living space per capita and in the number of smaller

households hampers the reduction of further land take.

Therefore, also practitioners and civic society need to be

efficiently addressed to steer urban soil sealing; this also

has been proven in this paper.

Framework Conditions of Ecologically Sustainable

Soil Sealing Management

Indicators reflecting framework conditions for an ecologi-

cally sustainable soil sealing management approach

showed that a temporal hypermetropia mainly achieves

high scores for the indicators. Moreover, the majority of

the responses reviewed considered at least ecological

aspects but mostly only within a city view (Table 4).

Although there is a call that urban sustainability needs to

consider planetary stewardship (Seitzinger et al. 2012), the

review of the responses confirmed that urban policies

neglect that urban development depends on the hinterland

and its ecological and economical services (Rees 1992).

For instance, experts in the boomtown of Munich evaluated

that the protection of agricultural land for food production

is less important than supporting regulating and cultural

ecosystem services (Table 2). Also the review of strategies

in both case study cities showed that the protection of this

service is rarely implemented. However, the loss of agri-

cultural land by land consumption means that food has to

be transported into the cities, which might promote sealing

for roads and increase air pollution by traffic, which then

has global impacts. Moreover, the high space demand for

motorized traffic is neglected by the responses reviewed.

This shows the need to improve the know-how by scientists

and decision makers about complex impacts caused by

urban soil sealing and loss of open areas through urban

land teleconnections (Seto et al. 2012).

Limits and Strengths of the Study

The evaluation of soil sealing management strategies and

its efficiency toward an ecologically sustainable manage-

ment approach was carried out by coding the results of the

qualitative content analysis through numeric classes. This

meant that weaknesses of a quantitative analysis, such as

not seeing behind the scene of words and their meanings in

a greater context (Selltiz et al. 1959), could be reduced. As

the coding of the results is very context-sensitive, the

process requires careful reading of the materials. There-

fore, the content analysis was repeated twice. By using

Fig. 4 Management competences and addressees at the macro-, meso- and mircoscale based on the response analyses. The green arrow shows

that actors at the microscale have less competence and are more often addressed for reducing soil sealing but influence the mesoscale (see red

arrow). The orange arrow indicates that the macroscale has more competence but is less often addressed to implement any soil sealing measures

538 AMBIO 2014, 43:530–541

123� The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

www.kva.se/en

indicators and coding, the results to compare strategies and

spatial sub-targets with each other, the approach presented

in this paper complements the qualitative and less sys-

tematic analysis of best practice examples for soil sealing

management by the European Commission (EC 2012).

However, a pairwise ranking of each response by experts,

like in a traditional AHP, was not done due to the high

amount of responses studied; but at least experts were

involved in developing the indicators and assessing their

importance.

Limits in this study occurred through the selection of

responses as it cannot be guaranteed that all responses

handling soil sealing in the case study cities have been

included. However, as experts were consulted in the

identification of important responses and several studies on

urban soil sealing and land take were revised, it can be

assumed that especially legal-planning, informal-planning,

and economic-fiscal strategies are complete as these pro-

vide the basis for urban development. However, informa-

tional and co-operative strategies might be incomplete as a

range of small local initiatives could exist, such as civic

greening communities (Bendt et al. 2013), which were not

integrated separately into the study. However, the most

important co-operations like the green ring Leipzig were

elaborated. Further research is necessary to investigate to

which degree such local greening initiatives support, for

instance, the protection of urban green areas and the

stewardship of ecosystem services, as undertaken by Bendt

et al. (2013).

Importance of Findings for Research on Ecosystem

Services

Although responses for reducing sealing and protecting

green for the provisioning of ecosystem service were

identified, none of these mentioned the term ‘‘ecosystem

services.’’ This has been shown in a study in Finland where

most of urban land use planning actors were not familiar

with the concept of ecosystem services although aspects of

it were included in land use planning (Niemela et al. 2010).

Therefore, a closer co-operation between science and

practice seems crucial to promote the concept of ecosystem

services. This might improve a comprehensive under-

standing of municipalities and their inhabitants regarding

the ecosystem and the benefits they derive from it for their

well-being (Daily et al. 2009; Niemela et al. 2010).

Findings of the study also showed that the qualitative

steering of soil sealing is primarily understood as the

promotion of infill development and densification

neglecting that a sufficient supply of ecosystem services is

also crucial for living quality in urban core areas as urban

ecosystem services should be provided where they are

consumed (Bolund and Hunhammar 1999). In this regard,

the ecosystem service approach can provide decision sup-

port for policies to identify which green areas should be

protected from further sealing and where sealing would be

acceptable by assessing the supply and demand of eco-

system services. However, further research is necessary to

provide standardized methods and indicators for planning

Table 3 Ranking of the three most important indicators per strategy for protecting ecosystem services in course of soil sealing management

Rank Legal-planning Informal-planning Economic-fiscal Informational Co-operative

M L M L M L M L M L

(1) Climate Climate Climate Climate Water Water Climate Climate Climate Less managed

(2) Water Water Water Less managed Climate Habitat More

managed

Water Habitat More

managed

(3) Habitat Habitat Less

managed

More

managed

More

managed

Climate Less managed Less

managed

Less

managed

Habitat

M Munich, L Leipzig, climate improving climate adaptation, water improving surface water run-off, habitat securing of habitats for flora and

fauna, more managed improving public green areas (more managed), less managed improving recreational areas (less managed)

Table 4 Ranking of indicators per strategy regarding framework conditions for ecologically sustainable steering of soil sealing

Rank Legal-planning Informal planning Economic-fiscal Informational Co-operative

M L M L M L M L M L

(1) Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Temp. Spat. Spat. Oblig. Oblig.

(2) Oblig. Oblig. Spat. Oblig. Oblig. Spat. Temp. Temp. Temp. Spat.

(3) Spat. Spat. Oblig. Spat. Spat. Red. Oblig. Oblig. Spat. Red.

M Munich, L Leipzig, temp. temporal hypermetropia, oblig. obligation for considering ecological aspects/reduction of sealing, spat. spatial

strategic overview, red. reducing motorized private transport

AMBIO 2014, 43:530–541 539

� The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

www.kva.se/en 123

and policy assessment, which are practical, applicable,

comprehensive, credible, sensitive to changes in land

management as well as temporarily and spatially explicit

(van Oudenhoven et al. 2012).

CONCLUSION

The paper introduced a new analytical approach to assess

and compare strategies and spatial sub-targets to secure

ecosystem services using the example of soil sealing

management. It contributes to a clearer understanding

about which ecosystem services are considered by planning

and policy to be threatened through soil sealing and land

consumption and which have to be secured by protecting

urban green and soils. It could be shown that challenges as

a result of climate change such as improvement of micro-

climate regulation and reduction of floods are the most

important arguments to reduce further sealing and to pro-

tect urban green. However, the study responds to the

increasing need to include the soil as an ecosystem service

provider in further research as well as to detect complex

connections between ecosystem service provision and land

use change as part of urban land teleconnections. Never-

theless, this study showed that the basis for an ecological

sustainable management of urban soil sealing steering is

assured, especially by legal- and informal-planning strate-

gies. However, since sealing is further increasing in Eur-

ope, it can be concluded that strategies lack efficient

implementation. Therefore, further research should focus

on assessing the steering potential of these responses (e.g.,

acceptance of responses, control of steering success) by

integrating actors of the meso- and microscale (as the main

steering addressees) into the assessment process.

Acknowledgments This research is financed by the German Envi-

ronment Foundation (Deutsche Bundesstiftung Umwelt, DBU).

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the

Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, dis-

tribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original

author(s) and the source are credited.

REFERENCES

Artmann, M. 2013a. Spatial dimensions of soil sealing management

in growing and shrinking cities—A systemic multi-scale analysis

in Germany. Erdkunde 67: 249–264.

Artmann, M. 2013b. Response-efficiency-assessment—A conceptual

framework for rating policy0s efficiency to meet sustainable

development on the example of soil sealing management.

Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management

15: 135002.

Artmann, M. 2013c. Driving forces of urban soil sealing and

constraints of its management—The cases Leipzig and Munich

(Germany). Journal of Settlements and Spatial Planning 4:

143–152.

Bendt, P., S. Barthel, and J. Colding. 2013. Civic greening and

environmental learning in public-access community gardens in

Berlin. Landscape and Urban Planning 101: 18–30.

Bolund, P., and S. Hunhammar. 1999. Ecosystem services in urban

areas. Ecological Economics 29: 293–301.

Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. 2007. What are ecosystem services? The

need for standardized environmental accounting units. Ecolog-

ical Economics 63: 616–626.

Breitenfeld, J. 2009. Methodology for calculating soil sealing and

space productivity and evaluation of federal states environmental

economic accounts (UGRdL) (in German). IOR-Workshop

Spatial Monitoring. Retrieved January 21, 2009, from http://

www.ioermonitor.de/fileadmin/Dokumente/Symposium_2009_

Expertenworkshop/breitenfeld.pdf.

Breuste, J.H. 2011. Ecology in cities: man-made physical condi-

tions—Summary. In Urban ecology. Patterns, processes, and

applications, ed. J. Niemela, 71–72. New York: Oxford Univer-

sity Press.

Bulkeley, H. 2013. Cities and climate change. Oxon: Routledge.

Burghardt, W. 2006. Soil sealing and soil properties related to sealing.

In Function of soils for human societies and the environment, ed.

E. Frossard, W.E.H. Blum, and B.P. Warkentin, Special

Publications 266, 117–124. London: The Geological Society.

Chiesura, A. 2004. The role of urban parks for the sustainable city.

Landscape and Urban Planning 68: 129–138.

Daily, G.C., S. Polasky, J. Goldstein, P.M. Kareiva, H.A. Mooney, L.

Pejchar, T.H. Ricketts, J. Salzman, et al. 2009. Ecosystem

services in decision making: Time to deliver. Frontiers in

Ecology and the Environment 7: 21–28.

De Ridder, K., F. Lefebre, S. Adriaensen, U. Arnold, W. Beckroege, C.

Bronner, O. Damsgaard, I. Dostal, et al. 2008. Simulating the

impact of urban sprawl on air quality and population exposure in

the German Ruhr area. Part II: Development and evaluation of an

urban growth scenario. Atmospheric Environment 42: 7070–7077.

Deutscher Bundestag. 2004. Report by the Federal Government on

the perspectives for Germany—National strategy for a sustain-

able development. Printed matter 15/4100, Berlin: German

Bundestag (in German).

EC (European Commission). 2012. Guidelines on best practice to

limit, mitigate or compensate soil sealing. Commission staff

working document, Brussels, Belgium, 65 pp.

EC (European Commission, Directorate General for Regional Policy).

2011. Cities of tomorrow—Challenges, visions, ways forward.

Publ. Office of the European Office, Luxembourg, 116 pp.

EEA (European Environment Agency). 2012. The State of Soil in

Europe. A contribution of the JRC to the EEA Environment State

and Outlook Report—SOER 2010, European Environment

Agency, Joint Research Centre, Luxembourg, 80 pp.

Elo, S., and H. Kyngas. 2008. The qualitative content analysis

process. Journal of Advanced Nursing 62: 107–115.

Gill, S.E., J.F. Handley, A.R. Ennos, and S. Pauleit. 2007. Adapting

cities for climate change: The role of the green infrastructure.

Built Environment 33: 115–133.

Goddard, M.A., A. Dougill, and T.G. Benton. 2010. Scaling up from

gardens: Biodiversity conservation in urban environments.

Trends in Ecology & Evolution 25: 90–98.

Grimm, N.B., S.H. Faeth, N.E. Golubiewski, C.L. Redman, J. Wu, X.

Bai, and J.M. Briggs. 2008. Global change and the ecology of

cities. Science 319: 756–760.

Haase, D., and H. Nuissl. 2007. Does urban sprawl drive changes in

the water balance and policy? The case of Leipzig (Germany)

1870–2003. Landscape and Urban Planning 80: 1–13.

540 AMBIO 2014, 43:530–541

123� The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

www.kva.se/en

Haase, D., and H. Nuissl. 2010. The urban-to-rural gradient of land

use change and impervious cover: A longterm trajectory for the

city of Leipzig. Journal of Land Use Science 5: 123–141.

Haase, D., N. Kabisch, and A. Haase. 2013. Endless urban growth?

On the mismatch of population, household and urban land area

growth and its effects on the urban debate. PLoS ONE 8: e66531.

Haase, D., N. Larondelle, E. Andersson, M. Artmann, S. Borgstrom,

J. Breuste, E. Gomez-Baggethun, A. Gren, et al. 2014. A

quantitative review of urban ecosystem service assessments:

Concepts, models, and implementation. AMBIO 43. doi:10.1007/

s13280-014-0504-0.

Henry, J.A., and S.E. Dicks. 1987. Association of urban temperatures

with land use and surface materials. Landscape and Urban

Planning 14: 21–29.

Herzele, A.V., and T. Wiedemann. 2003. A monitoring tool for the

provision of accessible and attractive urban greenspaces. Land-

scape and Urban Planning 63: 109–126.

Jo, H.K., and E.G. McPherson. 2001. Indirect carbon reduction by

residential vegetation and planting strategies in Chicago, USA.

Journal of Environmental Management 6: 165–177.

Kabisch, N., and D. Haase. 2013. Green spaces of European cities

revisited for 1990–2006. Landscape and Urban Planning 110:

113–122.

Larondelle, N., and D. Haase. 2013. Urban ecosystem services

assessment along a rural–urban gradient: A cross-analysis of

European cities. Ecological Indicators 29: 179–190.

MA (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and

human well-being: Biodiversity synthesis. World resources

Institute, Washington, DC, U.S., 100 pp.

Mendoza, G.A., and R. Prabhu. 2000. Development of a methodology

for selecting criteria and indicators of sustainable forest

management: A case study on participatory assessment. Envi-

ronmental Management 26: 659–673.

Montanarella, L. 2007. Trends in Land Degradation in Europe. In

Climate and land degradation, ed. M.V.K. Sivakumar, and N.

Ndiang’ui, 83–104. Berlin: Springer.

Niemela, J., R.S. Saarela, T. Soderman, L. Kopperoinen, V. Yli-

Pelkonen, S. Vare, and D.J. Kotze. 2010. Using the ecosystem

services approach for better planning and conservation of urban

green spaces: A Finland case study. Biodiversity and Conserva-

tion 19: 3225–3243.

Nuissl, H., and C. Schroeter-Schlaack. 2009. On the economic

approach to the containment of land consumption. Environmen-

tal Science & Policy 12: 270–280.

Osada, D. 2011. Impact of the pH-value on the soil life and nutrient

incorporation (in German). Retrieved August 30, 2013, from

www.ihr-einkauf.com/magazin/de/einfluss-des-ph-wertes-auf-

bodenleben.

Prokop, G., H. Jobstmann, and A. Schonbauer. 2011. Report on best

practices for limiting soil sealing and mitigating its effects.

Study contracted by the European Commission, DG Environ-

ment, Technical Report-2011-50, Brussels, Belgium, 231 pp.

Pulles, T., and T. van Harmelen. 2004. General policy questions need

specific policy effectiveness indicators: An example for emission

reduction targets. Environmental Sciences 1: 351–367.

Rees, W.E. 1992. Ecological footprints and appropriated carrying

capacity: What urban economics leaves out. Environment and

Urbanization 4: 121–130.

Saaty, T.L., and L.G. Vargas. 2012. Models, methods, concepts and

applications of the analytic hierarchy process. New York: Springer.

Seitzinger, S.P., U. Svedin, C. Crumley, W. Steffen, S.A. Abdullah,

C. Alfsen, W.J. Broadgate, F.H.B. Biermann, et al. 2012.

Planetary stewardship in an urbanising world: beyond city limits.

AMBIO 41: 787–794.

Selltiz, C., J. Deutsch, and S.W. Cook. 1959. Research methods in

social relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Seto, K.C., A. Reenberg, C.G. Boone, M. Fragkias, D. Haase, T.

Langanke, P. Marcotullio, D.K. Munroe, et al. 2012. Urban land

teleconnections and sustainability. Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109(20):

7687–7692.

Statistisches Bundesamt. 2012. Sustainable development in Germany.

Indicator report 2012. Wiesbaden: Statistisches Bundesamt (in

German).

Turok, I., and V. Mykhnenko. 2007. The trajectories of European

cities, 1960–2005. Cities 24: P165–P182.

van Oudenhoven, A.P.E., K. Petz, R. Alkemade, L. Hein, and R.S. de

Groot. 2012. Framework for systematic indicator selection to

assess effects of land management on ecosystem services.

Ecological Indicators 21: 110–122.

Zanakis, S.H., A. Solomon, N. Wishart, and S. Dublish. 1998. Multi-

attribute decision making: A simulation comparison of select

methods. European Journal of Operational Research 107: 507–529.

AUTHOR BIOGRAPHY

Martina Artmann (&) is working at her PhD thesis about methods

and efficiency of methods for controlling urban soil sealing. The

thesis is done at the research group of Urban and Landscape Ecology

at the University of Salzburg, Austria in co-operation with the

Bavarian Academy for Nature Protection and Rural Conservation

(ANL).

Address: Department of Geography and Geology, Paris-Lodron-

University Salzburg, Hellbrunnerstraße 34, 5020 Salzburg, Austria.

e-mail: Martina.Artmann@sbg.ac.at

AMBIO 2014, 43:530–541 541

� The Author(s) 2014. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

www.kva.se/en 123